In an editorial that surprised few people, the Star Tribune came out in favor of the "modest" changes being proposed to the Met Council membership selection and service process.

With zero evidence to support the assertion, the paper claims:

"the council is a homegrown success story that other metro areas regard with envy. With the power to both plan future growth and deliver needed infrastructure, it stands to be more important than ever in coming years as the region copes with a rapidly aging and diversifying population."

Three questions in response:

1) Why is the envy of bureaucrats from other cities about the Met Council more important than the concerns of citizens here in the Twin Cities?2) What evidence makes the editorial board think the Met Council is competent to address an aging and diversifying population?3) Why are normal, democratic processes insufficient to address such concerns?